C
CyanJaguar
New member
In fact, I know that it will be an earth shaking approach, but only if I have the fortitude to seriously think about it, research it, and develop it.
200 years from now, they might be calling CyanJaguar the father of "melodic quantitative" and the institutor of a generation of hit songwriters (assuming that the melody is what makes a hit).
Anyhow, if I can think clearly enough to try to explain it, here goes, in the very first writing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many people think of music in terms of bars and beats, with the exception of the melody. To many, the melody is a flowing, progressive element where the next note or phrase is somehow structurally related to the last note or phrase.
Most people think of changing the structure of a melody at very few points within the song: the melody structure might change at the approach/prechorus and at the chorus, and maybe another time at the bridge.
This system of thinking and songwriting is essentially flawed. It restricts the artist from complete creative expression and creates a sometimes monotonous melodic ambience. MOre importantly, if a songwriter is unable to successfully find a wildcard, it forces the songwriter to continue to develop an uninteresting melody and provides no avenuues for new wildcards to be injected into the melody.
What then is my new approach? actually, its not a new approach. Its a techniqe that many succesful songwriters already subconsciously employ. I am just giving it a name and definition so that many aspiring wildcard writers can identify it and employ it.
For lack of a better term, I am calling it the "melodic quantitative".
The "melodic quantitative" or MQ for short suggests thinking about the melody in beats and bars where the next bar need not have any structural relation to the last bar or beat except key ( i.e the bars should be in the same key)
That is to say, if a songwriter has an 8 bar verse, he could very well have 8 or more totally unrelated melody pieces that are only joined together by key. so,for example, he could go from singing only one note in one bar to singing 16 notes in the next bar or from singing in one octave in one bar to singing in a totally different octave in the next bar. An adventorous wildcard writer could even divide the bars into different melody sections for more creativitity.
This is not to say that there to be no repitition. No. If a songwriter finds a unique or exceptional melodic phrase, then its up to the writer to decide whether to duplicate it (as if commonly done in verses and choruses nowadays) or to go off in a totally new direction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thats the end of my first draft. I am looking for people to expound on and clarify what I am saying, so please add your thoughts and comments.
Finally, look for my next post in the clinic that will employ the melodic quantitative.
200 years from now, they might be calling CyanJaguar the father of "melodic quantitative" and the institutor of a generation of hit songwriters (assuming that the melody is what makes a hit).
Anyhow, if I can think clearly enough to try to explain it, here goes, in the very first writing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many people think of music in terms of bars and beats, with the exception of the melody. To many, the melody is a flowing, progressive element where the next note or phrase is somehow structurally related to the last note or phrase.
Most people think of changing the structure of a melody at very few points within the song: the melody structure might change at the approach/prechorus and at the chorus, and maybe another time at the bridge.
This system of thinking and songwriting is essentially flawed. It restricts the artist from complete creative expression and creates a sometimes monotonous melodic ambience. MOre importantly, if a songwriter is unable to successfully find a wildcard, it forces the songwriter to continue to develop an uninteresting melody and provides no avenuues for new wildcards to be injected into the melody.
What then is my new approach? actually, its not a new approach. Its a techniqe that many succesful songwriters already subconsciously employ. I am just giving it a name and definition so that many aspiring wildcard writers can identify it and employ it.
For lack of a better term, I am calling it the "melodic quantitative".
The "melodic quantitative" or MQ for short suggests thinking about the melody in beats and bars where the next bar need not have any structural relation to the last bar or beat except key ( i.e the bars should be in the same key)
That is to say, if a songwriter has an 8 bar verse, he could very well have 8 or more totally unrelated melody pieces that are only joined together by key. so,for example, he could go from singing only one note in one bar to singing 16 notes in the next bar or from singing in one octave in one bar to singing in a totally different octave in the next bar. An adventorous wildcard writer could even divide the bars into different melody sections for more creativitity.
This is not to say that there to be no repitition. No. If a songwriter finds a unique or exceptional melodic phrase, then its up to the writer to decide whether to duplicate it (as if commonly done in verses and choruses nowadays) or to go off in a totally new direction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thats the end of my first draft. I am looking for people to expound on and clarify what I am saying, so please add your thoughts and comments.
Finally, look for my next post in the clinic that will employ the melodic quantitative.
)
